GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-17-2004, 08:58   #1
Wulfenite
The King
 
Wulfenite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Pretty Fly for a White Guy
Posts: 13,475
3.2 vs 4.1 or >

I'm looking to get a digital camera. It will probably be one of the compact models like the little Cannons or Sonys since I want somthing that can be brought along fairly effortlessly. Of course this means it will have minimal zoom and I'll be croping later to bring the subject in closer.

Trying to figure out what's "enough" resolution.

Assuming you're shooting at full resolution, is 3.2 enough resolution for photo quality prints provided you dont do really big enlargements AND dont do too much croping to make up for the cameras lack of real zoom.

Also....

Does anybody rate the cameras by how much/often they pause before taking a picture after you've pressed the button. I borrowed one camera that would sometimes take the picture right away and sometimes pause a second or two. Very annoying and problematic for action shots.
__________________
I look around me and I see what I wanted and what I settled for
Yeah, Iíve got the heart of a joan of arc but the soul of a gigolo
Wulfenite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2004, 09:33   #2
saber41
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I always try to get the most camera for the money that I want to spend, the most bang for the buck !!

Depending on your needs, the 3.2 should be fine.
If the 4.1 is in your price range then go for it.

also, check the optical vs.digital zoom specs for the camera.
You will get better results with optical.

Check this site,
http://www.steves-digicams.com/
they do a great job of rating cameras and accessories.

good luck with your choice...
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2004, 11:16   #3
hwyhobo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Silicon Valley
Posts: 2,442


First of all, what do you understand by "really big enlargements"? 8x10? If you take perfectly framed pictures every time you press the shutter release, then you can buy 3MP if you wish. I am not so perfect. I always end up changing the framing in postprocessing. Sometimes I end up with just a fragment of the original photo.

My advice is, get whatever you can afford, it will not go to waste. These days when 5MP costs almost the same as 3MP, why would you penny-pinch yourself into a situation where you may lose some good shots?

As to the shutter delay, the most expensive cameras don't have it. It will take a while before consumer gear is at the same level. And yes, www.dpreview.com does mention delay in their reviews.
hwyhobo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2004, 13:36   #4
hile
Senior Member
 
hile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bucks County
Posts: 3,615
Send a message via AIM to hile
I agree with hwyhobo - I'd get 5MP. But then, my information comes from my sister who's a photog/digital artist. And what she considers "print quality" may be a LOT better than what the average person would consider print quality. So yeah, if it's not that much more, you may as well go with more resolution.
hile is offline   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 14:09.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,157
303 Members
854 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31